Almost everyone thinks nowadays that white gets nothing in the London after 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 c5 4. e3 Nc6 5. c3 Qb6!

So white players have changed move-order to avoid that, viz.

1. d4 d5 2. Bf4

If now ...Nf6, then Nf3 is delayed and white gets in Nd2 early, so Qb6 loses its punch somewhat.

2. ...Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nd2 and now black can transpose to the slightly more passive lines with e6 and Bd6. I did so in a recent game, but White gained a nagging edge due to my bad bishop and lack of counterplay, while he had promising kingside play with some kind of a stonewall setup.

Is there a way he can do better? 2. ...c5 allows the dangerous 3. e4!? and it's not clear it achieves much if White just plays 3. e3. OK, black can transpose to the Caro Kann with cxd4 but who wants to play a caro anyway

People who don't want to play the boring-ass games that result from playing 1. d4 d5 2. Bf4!

But this is a very lame line of caro-kann for white.
Usually white plays Bd3 as soon as possible so as to prevent Bf5

After 2...c5 3.e3 Qb6! 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Sf3 the most ambitous move is 5...c4!? The most important game is Meduna- Van der Sterren, Prag 1992: 6.Rb1 Bg4 7.Be2 e6 8.O-O Nc6 9.h3 Bxf3 10.Bxf3 Be7 11.Ne2 Qa5 12.a3 h6 13.c3 g5 with a slow but steady attack.

Probably more sensible is 9.Ne5 Bxe2 10.Nxe2 with an equal game. In Sosna - Kozak, Brno 2005, followed 11.b3 cxb3 12.Rxb3 Qa6 13.Qd3 Qxd3 14.cxd3 with an interesting position. White won after a long battle but not because of the opening.

An interesting early deviation is 6.a4!? a6 7.Qc1 with the idea to crack the pawn chain with b3, Heinzel - Stross, 2003. Black should probably play 7...Nc6

The Albins gambit with the valuable extra move Bf4 must be correct but I don't believe that White has an advantage. After 3.e4!? dxe4 4.d5 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 there are several grandmaster games to study with 6.Qe2 and 6.Qd2. It looks like usually the better player wins. 6.f3 can be quite dangerous too. I would decline that pawn with 6...e3 when the pawn f3 looks rather silly.

Why not just play your line 1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nd2 and now Bf5 6. Nf3 Qb6

Or use Kramnik's setup in the game Eljanov-Kramnik 2008 with d5, Nf6, c5, Nc6, g6
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1503831

The basic idea behind Bf4 is that black cannot win the bishop pair. Let us examine the following sequence: 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 g6 3. Nf3 Bg7 4. e3 d6 5. c3 if now Nh5 then 6.Bg5 h6 7. Bh4 g5 there follows 8. Nfd2(!) and the queen attacks the Nh5. This leads us to one move-pair: Whenever white wants to play Nbd2 (blocking the Nf3-retreat), he has to play h3 first. Notice that the same concept (counterattack h5) doesn't work after 2.Bg5 as the black knight will only move to h5 after g5 and Bg3 has been played already. That is why Bf4 is the superior setup. This is all well known with colors reversed and Botvinnik won many nice games with it.

The problem is that the system doesn't have enough bite with white. The reason is zugzwang. For reference look at this game that I have posted in the other thread already: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1040438

The problem occurs on move 8! Where to place the bishop when black can still decide if he wants to play e5 or c5? You don't want a bishop on d3 when black can play it with e5, so Dzindzi played Be2 and only after that Gulko played c5.

On move 12 Dzindzi played the bishop back to d3, so basically he lost the tempo and with it the advantage of moving first. Did he have an alternative? Not really (compare this to the position with colors reversed)! So how can white improve? He can delay moving the Bf1. So 8.Bh2 Nbd7 9.a4 is an option, but I don't still see anything special for white after 9....a6 as he simply runs out of constructive waiting moves.

Notice the strong moves 15. Bxf6 reaching light squared dominance (c4 and d5) and the counter 16...Bh6 restoring the ballance. The reason that Gulko lost the game was simply the blunder at move 22.

As long as white cannot improve somewhere, I don't think that the whole setup has any potential. It is a safe way to play for a draw if you are leading in the last round of a tournament, but not more.

I think 5. .. Bf5 is a mistake there. White has 6. Qb3 with a much better position than he deserves for playing the London.

I prefer the simple kingside fianchetto as in Kramnik's games. The biggest deterrent to such setups is when white can get a rapid attack or queenside play but when white plays such a neutered opening black can have the best of it without too many concerns.

d5, nf6, g6, bg7, 0-0, c5, nc6, nd7, e5 is a plan I like very much

thx everyone, i def will look into the gruenfeldesque systems with d5 and later g6.

vs the london boringness i go nf6 e6 c5 bb7 be7 00 then play for d6 e5

sry b6 before bb7 obv